[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by flandroid

I thought I spoke my points fairly and was, in fact, disagreeing with the opinion (or two opinions, I suppose, eventually). I don't think I insulted anyone, I suppose 'tantrum' is up for debate but I can't imagine the phone conversation with Amazon was particularly level-headed. I'm standing by it.

"tantrum" is not up for debate, it simply is. Insulting, that is.

And you don't actually know what happened in that phone call, you are merely assuming.
Either way, you should still not be judging.

EDIT: refreshing the page before hitting "submit reply" is critical also, I was right.

You might, and I wouldn't consider it an insult, though apparently you would, as you're holding similar sentiment in my replies as such. You might even be committing an infraction against the bit of the posting guidelines you quoted, only you're doing it more passive-aggressively than I might have.

Why, yes -- I was aware that you don't consider it a problem. Just like I don't consider it a problem if someone, ah, doesn't know the "Conditions imposed on the use of a product". Or they do know, but disagree.
That was my point. As well as the fact that there is actual ignorance, and ignorance-which-might-just-be-a-difference-of-opinion.

Originally Posted by Anthem

It's kinda like turning a lawn mower into a helicopter, and then complaining when the company recalls a certain component of the lawn mower that, thanks to what you have done, will bork your helicopter modification.

No, it's kind of like complaining when the company sneaks into your house in the middle of the night and replaces a component that has an updated version.

Originally Posted by flandroid

Speaking only for myself, I'm fine with people being able to buy a second-hand Kindle on eBay without worrying that the browser has been modified to add a keylogger; others may disagree. The manufacturer has every right to protect its users (and itself) from wrongful or malicious use of the hardware, especially to avoid circumstances such as those described by Anthem above, or worse. But especially in these cases, where the provider and the device are inextricably linked by branding, allowing modified software to run could be a legal/publicity/financial nightmare -- user buys a hacked Kindle, runs to CNN yelling 'Amazon let Russian hackers steal my identity,' pitchforks outside Amazon HQ.

Just curious Does the same thing apply to the average Android smartphone or Windows computer?


Answer: Don't buy used devices unless you know what you are doing. Used devices fundamentally aren't as delivered by the manufacturer, for a variety of hardware- and software-related reasons.


And I note that you say you jailbroke your Kindle, despite believing that people shouldn't modify them?

Originally Posted by flandroid

Did you buy a Kindle Fire because it was the best tablet available, hardware- and software-wise? Or was the price point a concern? Similarly-specced tablets without a leash to a particular company's ecosystem cost considerably more. Where is that deficit going to be made up? Is Amazon just going to give you that extra hundred bucks, extra gigabyte, extra gigahertz, out of gratitude? It owes you no goodwill, it merely owes you a product that is delivered as described. Which it delivers on. Business, not charity. TANSTAAFL, and all that.

That deficit is made up when you buy things through the integrated store. But if you shoved it in a drawer and never turned it on, Amazon would not be making money.
Mandatory updates and device lockdown do not make a company money, sales do.

Amazon sells devices at near-cost, as an incentive for you to buy from them.

Edit: to tie it back to the original topic at hand:

• consumer buys device, uses it in a way which is outside the device's intended and promised scope
• device manufacturer pushes update to device, update reverts user's device back to performing as promised and intended, possibly offering usability and security improvements at the same time
• user throws a fit, cries to heavens, earth and Amazon, saying 'bring back to me that which I was never promised'
• other user (hi, yours truly), says 'actually...'
• intermission, refreshments

That is one way of looking at it.

Personally, I find that using my Kindle in a way outside its intended scope makes it work better.
If not, I wouldn't have bothered messing with it -- what, do you think I waste my time trying to de-optimize my Kindle???


To get back to the original topic :

• Consumer buys device, modifies personal property to suit user's needs.
• Device manufacturer pushes update to device, device is no longer as promised or intended, nor is device as delivered and subsequently modified. Device is, in fact, some third entity entirely, which manufacturer blithely promises is "better". Maybe it is. That is a subjective opinion.
• User is upset. Calls manufacturer, complains, says "stop preventing me from using my device the way I want to. You don't own it anymore."
• Other user argues that first user should not be allowed to modify his device, perhaps because manufacturer owns trademark and branding of device. Accuses first user of throwing tantrums.
• Argumentation and hullabaloo.
• Other user continues disparaging the idea of anyone doing as he has done.

You would expect to control which updates your computer gets, why should your Kindle be any different?
(And Microsoft did try to take away that ability in Windows 10. And desktop users had a cow. MS backed down, released a tool to block selected updates. At no point was their trademark under dispute.)